In the wake of the Charlie Kirk slaying, Micah Beckwith–Indiana’s Christian Nationalist Lieutenant Governor– reportedly said “From the history of mankind, there’s always been truth-speakers who have been speaking God’s truth and the enemy comes at them – the devil and his lies. They’ll try to silence those people. Charlie was one of those people. He was speaking truth and the enemy, the devil and his minions, try to silence him. I think what’s happening is actually the exact opposite effect. I think what you’re going to see is that there are going to be many more like him that are now going to rise up and start speaking where he left off. There’s a saying in the church throughout Christendom, ‘The blood of the martyr is the seed of the church.”
I was heartened by a recent poll (paywall) that pegged Beckwith’s support in Indiana at a robust 9%. Still, I think it’s worthwhile to examine some of the “truths” that Beckwith thinks Kirk was speaking.
In a recent Substack, Paul Krugman looked at Kirk’s approach to women–an approach that is shared by Christian Nationalists, much of MAGA, and other Rightwing radicals.
Kirk was a counterrevolutionary, a revanchist, who deftly exploited a vision of a lost American gender ideal and the accompanying feelings of dislocation and humiliation on the part of men. Specifically, he wanted to reverse what Claudia Goldin (winner of the Nobel in Economics in 2023) has called the “quiet revolution” in women’s role in American society that occurred between the late 1970s and early 1990s.
Krugman points out that Goldin’s “quiet revolution” didn’t refer to the increasing numbers of women in the paid labor force, a trend that had begun in the 1940s, and had mostly culminated by the late 1970s. Rather, it referred to a radical change in the nature of the kinds of jobs that American women held.
While many women held paid jobs by the early 1970s, young women still tended to see work outside the home as occasional and provisional, as a way to earn modest amounts of money rather than as a fundamental part of their identity. The revolution, according to Goldin, happened when young women began to think about jobs in the same way young men always had — that it wasn’t simply “work” but a career.
As a result, women lived their lives differently. And as Krugman notes, that change has had large ramifications for men.
The changes in women’s status were results of access to contraception and the passage of anti-discrimination laws, and what Krugman describes as a “multiplier effect”— the more that women delayed marriage and childbirth, the more they trained for careers, the easier it became for others to do the same. And as he also pointed out, “rising divorce rates led many women to doubt whether marriage was a safe haven that obviated the need for an independent career.”
Charlie Kirk argued strenuously that this was all a mistake and should be reversed. Krugman quotes him: “Having children is more important than having a good career.”
Kirk was calling on America to stop being the society it is and go back to being the kind of society it hasn’t been for generations. Or, rather, he wanted us to enact his fantasy about what our society once was like. If you imagine that America before the quiet revolution was a nation in which all marriages were happy and all stay-at-home wives were contented, you should read Betty Friedan — or the novels of John Updike.
Krugman and others have pointed out that Kirk never bothered to offer serious policy proposals. But his hostility to women’s equality clearly resonated with many young white men — “men who resent their status in modern America and believe that their lives would be better if we returned to an older social order.”
Krugman concluded by recognizing that, in today’s America, we have “a society that appears to be problematic for many men.” There is a reason Kirk’s revanchism grew his support among them.
Appealing to resentments is the whole strategy of MAGA, Trumpworld and Christian Nationalism–not by suggesting ways to ameliorate unsatisfactory situations, not by advancing policy proposals that might mitigate such situations, but by the far simpler tactic of finding some “other” to blame.
It’s a strategy that evidently works with a significant number of Americans, and it explains the rise of “religious” zealots like Micah Beckwith and clever grifters like Charlie Kirk–opportunists who wage war on women, immigrants, gay people and people of color…
Gender inequity is alive and well in het relationships. While less extreme now, we’ve not seriously addressed it systematically- particularly among us advantaged white men. When will househusbands- no longer be because She has the higher income? Who stays home with the Sick child?
White men just cannot seem to handle the fact that they are no longer the number one denomination in our every 10 years census. It cannot be any more blatantly obvious by the white Christian nationalist group. As a member of the boomer generation, it all appears to me that these fanatics want to turn the clock back almost a hundred years. If they could they would even take away a woman’s right to vote. Can anyone show me in history or with science, how does going backwards help you gain anything towards your future?
Very timely article and helps to explain Kirk’s appeal to today’s angry white Republican voters concerned about working mother’s and the changing of “traditional family roles”. This concern is also reflected in the Project 2025 plan that’s been unfolding right before our eyes under the guise of faith, religion and “family” where the husband is clearly superior.
When we both worked, my wife the lawyer almost doubled my salary as a science teacher. I loved it. We traveled the world. We had season tickets to our baseball team. We went to the symphony every two weeks. Our car and home got paid off. I got to play golf anytime I wanted.
So, why are white men so pissed off about women working at professional careers? Is it a side-effect of testosterone poisoning, or is it a sickness brought on by church dogma that orders women to be subservient to men … you know, like the Taliban does to their women?
I see it as utter stupidity as far as advancing the society past the emptiness of Beckwith and most other Republicans. The litany of women creating highly successful discoveries and careers is long and deep. Guess who built all those airplanes and guns for WW II.
I don’t think anything will cure the backwardness and willful ignorance of Republican men who fear the loss of what passes for their masculinity. They’ve never had any character to lose.
Of course you heard none of Charlie’s service yesterday. You prefer to dutifully repeat the old liberal narrative ( and it’s getting SO OLD) that did not reflect Charlie’s true beliefs or character.
The words of his wife rang the loudest and now a WOMAN, with beauty, power, faith and strength , will lead Turning Point USA to honor and carry on her beloved husband’s mission. While you don’t “get” it – millions of others do – especially young men and women.
The flame Charlie lit will now grow like wildfire….. listen to the message with an open heart – it might just change your life.
It’s a bit odd to say Kirk wants women to remain in the home when his widow is taking over the organization.
Moreover,I find it quite odd when those using Kimmel as a martyr for free speech were silent when Assange was jailed. Also, anyone remember when Phil Donohue was yanked from MSNBC (when his show was the highest watched at the network) because of his truth-telling wrt Iraq and Afghanistan?
History has proven Phil was goddamned right.
Americans have such short attentionspans and memories.
Well, I find it interesting that Charlie’s widow is picking up his torch and will run TP-USA. Doesn’t that immediately fly in the face of his “truth-telling about women?”
As a follow-the-money guy, Charlie was nothing more than an Israeli cut-out funded by Bibi’s billionaire friends in the good ole USA. How many times did our “truth-teller” mention Israel’s genocide in Gaza? Charlie was a Trump and MAGA political functionary. A highly paid mouthpiece. Period.
If you look at the last six months of his life, he was beginning to have doubts about his role for Israel and Bibi. Read Bibi’s “eulogies” to Charlie after his death. The Zionist billionaire Bill Ackman fronted Charlie and was losing control of him. Charlie invited anti-Israel Tucker Carlson to his Youth Summit this summer, which was literally the ‘turning point.’
Nothing but silence is coming from Utah about Charlie’s death and his murderer, so, as usual, the conspiracists have filled in the blanks. Many believe the video of Charlie’s neck exploding was an “exit wound,” not a frontal entry wound. I’ve read some interesting theories from ballistic experts. They can’t understand why the police have not released the “load” of the bullet used by Tyler.
Also, there are social media posts, which have been deleted, that anticipated Charlie’s arrival on the Utah campus. They’ve said that September 10th will be a “big surprise for haters.” Did Tyler plan his assassination, or were others involved?
Also, why hasn’t the media called Tyler a gay man if he was romantically involved with another man? I’ve scanned many articles in this country and outside, yet none of them indicate Tyler as gay. They mention him as a “roommate” who was “romantically involved” with Tyler. How does a young man who grows up in a Mormon household with two MAGA parents make that switch? Or, as the FBI is investigating, how did Tyler become “radicalized?” He was apparently interested in the “furry culture,” which I can’t even begin to explain.
The Utah prosecutor wants you to think it’s an open and shut case, but I don’t think it’s that simple and “convenient” for them.
So who’s gonna tell Mrs. Kirk to get back into the kitichen?
I didn’t watch Kirk’s funeral service because I knew it would only be used as propaganda by MAGA. The “messaging” started immediately – radical leftists killed this great humanitarian, they must be stopped and we’re going to investigate the organizations that fund these activities. And as usual, they used the media to frame the discussion and give MAGA another rallying cry. They have also worked hard to characterize the shooter and his motives as something with a political motive. No need to wait for the court and a jury to review actual evidence and render a decision based on facts.
Would Kirk be shocked at such a rush to judgement?
Ole Chuck was the Marketing and Recruiting arm of the “M” party, earning millions of dollars, to work on college and university campuses in the United States, recruiting unformed young minds for their training and guidance, to infiltrate all levels of government of this country on behalf of and at the direction of the “M” organization. Mostly, these youth were led to believe that they would be”saving” America.
Todd, I guess somebody has to jump into the loony bin otherwise I would be completely ignorant of haw strange things can get on the Internet.
I started my IT working career in a hospital in 1980. I suspect that hospitals were 20+ years ahead of the rest of the country in that “quiet revolution”. Even then, I think managment in the IT department was close to 50/50 male/female. Looking back, I think that had a major effect on my attitude (positive) about women in the workplace.
When I started working for the local power company in the early 00’s, it was the good ol’ boy’s club, like nothing I’ve ever seen. Granted, most people still think of the power company as heavy industry where the average line man was 6’2”, but line men are maybe 20% of the work force. There is an huge number of professional support staff. but even on the professional side, I don’t think there were 10 women employees, unless you counted the call center, and then there weren’t 5 men.
I can see why the “quiet revolution” could be a shock to so many. And with the right motivation from somebody like Kirk, I can see how whipping up hatred is easier than facing your own shortcomings.
Vernon, I see it as the church dogma running their minds, you know, the dogma that is some 2,000 years old, and may have been suited to those times…”may” I say.
Becky, as you will continue to live in your narrow place, enjoy. Hate talk, when it comes from your side is, apparently, just fine…enjoy.
Political theater is alive and well in the US, but unfortunately, it comes at the expense of good governance. For that, we are stuck with massive corruption and incompetence.
In a nutshell. Becky, do not watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9NnQt_eQ0I
In researching Margaret Sanger, I came across the following PBS timeline of pregnancy and birth control and the timelines. Quite a few ‘aha’ moments like 1873:
1873
March 2: Congress passes the Comstock Law, an anti-obscenity act that specifically lists contraceptives as obscene material and outlaws the dissemination of them via the postal service or interstate commerce. At the time, the United States is the only western nation to enact laws criminalizing birth control.
As a nation, we have had some strange notions with sex–I mean some oddities that I will blame on organized religion.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-timeline/
I have the feeling Charlie Kirk’s mom was gone to work one day and couldn’t make him a peanut butter and jelly sandwich after school, and he’s been mad about it ever since.
I don’t understand the panic around a woman choosing to stay single and not have kids. There is more to life than sex, marriage, and parenting . I am perfectly happy on my own without a man or kids in my life.
“Lost American gender ideal”—Appealing to resentment only leads to the escalation of violence. Consider having a look at Scott Galloway’s podcast or his forthcoming book, “Notes on Being a Man.” Couldn’t agree more with George, Mary Kay, Pete and others.
With the freedom that US bill of Rights expresses and with increase in education women are gradually evolving and becoming more self-reliant and productive. For Maga to purposely try to block women’s progress due to their selfish control issues is so unjust.
Religion is so focused on controlling sexuality; if they control what’s primal in humans then they take control of your life force and are in charge of you. It’s so egregious that politicians have drug women’s most personal intimate issues into the public arena for political gain and to dominate.
Rose: Same for public education and public media. If they can gain advantage, they will politicize anything with no regard for the consequences. Ask Mitch McConnell.